One thing I've often thought would make the game better is Warrior Aging; say if they drew a line at 400FE or something, and after that point the warrior would start growing old and LOSING skills.
Such a thing would make for more parity at the top of Primus... it's a very daunting task for anyone in the lower ranks, knowing that you have a very, very, long road to catch up to the top echelon. Even more so when they are several hundred FE ahead, and you can never catch up to their FE.
I know it'll never happen. Such a drastic thing would have to be implemented at the game's birth, or it would cause a huge uproar. But, I think it would have made a better game.

One thing I've often thought would make the game better is Warrior Aging; say if they drew a line at 400FE or something, and after that point the warrior would start growing old and LOSING skills.
Such a thing would make for more parity at the top of Primus... it's a very daunting task for anyone in the lower ranks, knowing that you have a very, very, long road to catch up to the top echelon. Even more so when they are several hundred FE ahead, and you can never catch up to their FE.
I know it'll never happen. Such a drastic thing would have to be implemented at the game's birth, or it would cause a huge uproar. But, I think it would have made a better game.

I think if you put the time and money into getting to 400 FE the last thing you want to see is a diminishing return on your investment.

KhorvinusAdvanced Master Poster

Joined: Apr 11, 2011
Posts: 348

Posted:
Tue May 10, 2011 9:49 am

Elephant wrote:

_Buri_ wrote:

One thing I've often thought would make the game better is Warrior Aging; say if they drew a line at 400FE or something, and after that point the warrior would start growing old and LOSING skills.
Such a thing would make for more parity at the top of Primus... it's a very daunting task for anyone in the lower ranks, knowing that you have a very, very, long road to catch up to the top echelon. Even more so when they are several hundred FE ahead, and you can never catch up to their FE.
I know it'll never happen. Such a drastic thing would have to be implemented at the game's birth, or it would cause a huge uproar. But, I think it would have made a better game.

I think if you put the time and money into getting to 400 FE the last thing you want to see is a diminishing return on your investment.

i totally agree with Elephant. And it also kinda puts a sense of irony to being "immortal" as well

_________________Show me someone that has never failed, and i'll show you someone who has never attempted to accomplish anything.

_Buri_Grandmaster Poster

Joined: Nov 07, 2010
Posts: 853
Location: Asgard

Posted:
Tue May 10, 2011 9:57 am

Yes, but how many people have quit the game because the mountain is too high to climb? Because they saw it was going to take 10 years just to be competetive at the top? Or simply don't play in ADM because of it? Don't you agree that more people playing is better?
If you knew going in that warriors were going to get old eventually, it would be much more acceptable. Warriors would "peak" at a certain age, which would be more realistic. Everybody would be on the same level playing field, and the upper game would be more about managerial skill, than tenure, as it is now.

Last edited by _Buri_ on Tue May 10, 2011 10:20 am; edited 1 time in total

AssurnasirbanipalArchMaster Poster

Joined: Oct 21, 2002
Posts: 1507
Location: San Jose, CA

Posted:
Tue May 10, 2011 10:06 am

Originally the game was not intended to support the development levels that we see now. Luckily, there is aging built in to the system.

But it is implemented not on warriors, but managers. People like Tripwire are the smart ones, raising up replacement managers for himself to take over when he's to old to remember how to write 10-10 Decise.

Speaking of which, how is Bulldog doing?

KhorvinusAdvanced Master Poster

Joined: Apr 11, 2011
Posts: 348

Posted:
Tue May 10, 2011 10:20 am

_Buri_ wrote:

Yes, but how many people have quit the game because the mountain is too high to climb? Because they saw it was going to take 10 years just to be competetive at the top? Don't you agree that more people playing is better?
If you knew going in that warriors were going to get old eventually, it would be much more acceptable. Warriors would "peak" at a certain age, which would be more realistic. Everybody would be on the same level playing field, and the upper game would be more about managerial skill, than tenure, as it is now.

I see what your saying, and I still totally disagree with what your saying. Its the same thing that is happening in every other MMO out there. People start complaining cuz its too hard to compete with the people that worked to get to the top, and they demand that changes be made to where its fair for 'everyone'. Well, if someone is having to pay because they put the time in to get their warriors exactly where they want them, and it took them years (and i mean years) to do it, how fair is it to them? When Blizzard decided to make the game "fair" to "everyone" more people quit then than anyother time in WoW's history. People that spent months upon months PvPing to aquire the gear through honor grinding were suddenly sucker punched in the groin with one sad patch. People that just started playing, or that were just plain too lazy had the same gear in one weekend that took people that had been playing since the game started to get.

Im not saying you are one of those people Buri, and im definately not saying your lazy, but thats how things get started, and quite frankly, RSI doesnt have the customer base that Blizzard does, and wont last long once people at the top start feeling the effects of what people call "fair".

_________________Show me someone that has never failed, and i'll show you someone who has never attempted to accomplish anything.

_Buri_Grandmaster Poster

Joined: Nov 07, 2010
Posts: 853
Location: Asgard

Posted:
Tue May 10, 2011 11:13 am

But I'm not demanding any change... I've made it clear from the beginning that I'm not suggesting it should be changed. Only that it would have been a better game if it were that way from day 1.

I have suggested a non-immortal ADM arena. Nobody was biting. To me it would be more intriguing to have a warrior with 200 FE who might die than an immortal. Immortality to me is a really boring aspect of the game.

Won't happen. It was proposed at a FTF and a lot of the megas got excited at the prospect of their maxxed out guys getting old and TCing contenders and eligibles again, so that nipped the idea in the bud.

Better to just implement a simple retirement policy...

ElephantGrandmaster Poster

Joined: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 955
Location: NoCal

Posted:
Tue May 10, 2011 1:05 pm

_Buri_ wrote:

Yes, but how many people have quit the game because the mountain is too high to climb? Because they saw it was going to take 10 years just to be competetive at the top? Or simply don't play in ADM because of it? Don't you agree that more people playing is better?
If you knew going in that warriors were going to get old eventually, it would be much more acceptable. Warriors would "peak" at a certain age, which would be more realistic. Everybody would be on the same level playing field, and the upper game would be more about managerial skill, than tenure, as it is now.

I'm not sure how many people have quit because the mountain being too high as it pertains to FE. Now if you're talking about the open-handed AB that's a different story. Yes people come and go in this game. I think the reasons people leave varies. I don't think it's fair to penalize a manager who has spent that much time/money to reach those high FEs.

IMO-the game is broke at the top end. I think basic and AD are fine the way they are. I don't think there is a quick fix at the top. If it was fixed/nerfed are you punishing the managers that have taken the time/effort etc. to develop these AB? Even if you fixed the AB problem(not sure if it's fair to call it that), you'd probably either under-power the ABs or over-power another style. Now you have the same problem, just with a different style.

I remember it seemed like nobody would ever beat Donatello but eventually after years of domination he was over taken.

I guess a lot of it depends on your goals in the game. There are different types of managers that play:

Basic (non-tourney, arena 81)
Basic and tourney
ADM
ADM and tourney
Tourney only(run in arena to set FE)
Upper End
Some managers are exclusive to what I've mentioned above, well others play a little of each and some play all of the above. I think that there is enough different styles of play to go around to keep the majority happy(to a certain extent). There's always room to improve but you have to look at the cost of improvement. Minor changes even at the basic level could turn out to be major. I hear and feel your concerns but I just don't think there's a simple way to address them.

If one of your goals is upper end, then yes you have a long road to travel. But it's a road that others before you had to travel. Would it be fair for a helicopter to fly you there when others have had to walk the road?

ElephantGrandmaster Poster

Joined: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 955
Location: NoCal

Posted:
Tue May 10, 2011 1:19 pm

Managerr wrote:

Won't happen. It was proposed at a FTF and a lot of the megas got excited at the prospect of their maxxed out guys getting old and TCing contenders and eligibles again, so that nipped the idea in the bud.

Damn never thought about it like that. I guess where there's a will there's a way.

Managerr wrote:

Better to just implement a simple retirement policy...

No doubt someone who's spent endless time/money/effort isn't going to like the fact that their warrior is being forced to retire.

Street_LegalArchMaster Poster

Joined: Jul 29, 2002
Posts: 3433
Location: The Big D (etroit) area

Posted:
Tue May 10, 2011 3:01 pm

If aging were implemented you would see guys "timing" their tournaments. Sort of like "Hey 5 is at 380 FE he only has 20 FE before he starts to lose ability and fade away. Therefore I'll have to sit him and wait for a prize I REALLY want." Would that be the case or would guys more likely run them up until they fade away and bring up their next line of prospects.

I think that if they did age they shouldn't be moved down as they fall below a skill level line but rather once you reach the top tier your locked there. You could then, as they age to becoming unwinnable warriors, move them to the proposed Hall of Fame arena where their skills could be restored, again their locked there, and they could forever entertain the masses by showing off their incredible skill. Also give them a tourney class as well.

Heck all those EA games have diminishing returns as a player/fighter ages (Fight Night, NHL, Madden, etc.)

_________________A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Street_Legal on Tue May 10, 2011 5:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

TripwireArchMaster Poster

Joined: Mar 10, 2008
Posts: 1977

Posted:
Tue May 10, 2011 4:09 pm

Assurnasirbanipal wrote:

Speaking of which, how is Bulldog doing?

He is having a hard time getting his stuff in on time. He loves reading the fights but hates doing the leg work. So I let him miss turns and he freaks then does the stuff immediately. Runs 1 misses one. But I won't do it for him so..

If aging were implemented you would see guys "timing" their tournaments. Sort of like "Hey 5 is at 380 FE he only has 20 FE before he starts to lose ability and fade away. Therefore I'll have to sit him and wait for a prize I REALLY want." Would that be the case or would guys more likely run them up until they fade away and bring up their next line of prospects.

I think that if they did age they shouldn't be moved down as they fall below a skill level line but rather once you reach the top tier your locked there. You could then, as they age to becoming unwinnable warriors, move them to the proposed Hall of Fame arena where their skills could be restored, again their locked there, and they could forever entertain the masses by showing off their incredible skill. Also give them a tourney class as well.

Heck all those EA games have diminishing returns as a player/fighterb ages (Fight Night, NHL, Madden, etc.)

isnt this kinda like what Gateway was all about?

_________________Show me someone that has never failed, and i'll show you someone who has never attempted to accomplish anything.

Last edited by Khorvinus on Tue May 10, 2011 6:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

gentlebenArchMaster Poster

Joined: Aug 21, 2008
Posts: 3370
Location: Round Rock, Tx

Posted:
Tue May 10, 2011 5:53 pm

If they were to implement the age factor (which they could justify as the immortality they speak of is being resurrected not to never die), they should not so much take skills away but to lower your stats incrementally as you age which will in it's own way reduce skills as well as ability. I do not see this happening as it would affect to top end game where the most money is probably spent.